Jeff Grubb on WotC and layoffs

[Mercutio01]

I would guess the average Full Professor in the US makes ~ $80-95 k, but I haven't checked in a long time. I just did a Salary.com check (always of questionable validity) on "Professor-English" in Saint Louis, MO, and got $80 k as the average.

If you want accurate information on pay for professors, check out the AAUP (American Association of University Professors), or check the websites of specific schools -- some do post their pay scale, or even actual individual salaries -- on the public internet.

It's worth noting, I suppose, since I just applied for full-time faculty (I'm currently an adjunct) that the starting base salary is ~40K for public universities and community colleges. The full-timers I know that have about 5-6 years of time working for the colleges make around 60K and it isn't until the 10 year point that salaries hit 80-90K and that's pretty much where it caps out.

 

[GreyLord]

Well, there may be a few stars that make that kind of money in Academia, but even professors at R1 universities in the United States seldom see that kind of salary. The ones that do are generally full professors with university appointments and some personal cache (e.g., Cornel West, a nobel prize winner).

If 1.5 decades ago professors made the amounts you suggest, then far from outstripping inflation, our salaries have been stagnant and perhaps even deflated. But I'd have to look at more data to say with any degree of confidence that any of this was true.

It's worth noting, I suppose, since I just applied for full-time faculty (I'm currently an adjunct) that the starting base salary is ~40K for public universities and community colleges. The full-timers I know that have about 5-6 years of time working for the colleges make around 60K and it isn't until the 10 year point that salaries hit 80-90K and that's pretty much where it caps out.

Thank you gentlemen for the information. I was merely basing my ideas on the university system off of some articles detailing research on rising college tuition and the targeting of those university presidents who made several times more than the professors (many times over a million dollar salary for those President types).

As you can tell, I am NOT involved with the university system in anyway (except when they go begging for donations) so my information from the frontlines is obviously flawed. Thank you once again.

A stock ticker... wow.

That's a whole new level of risky mentality. Not really a healthy long-term choice for a company unless it has strong lobbyists.

Not so much on the stock ticker, but on stocks themselves, that's a pretty important aspect. This is what the end of the year payoffs come from (well, how well the company did x how many stocks you hold...etc.) for stockholders, as well as telling how well a company may actually be doing. For the people who actually own stocks, I'd say that their pay is because they actually OWN the company as opposed to work for it. Now it is in their interest to get the BEST people possible to work for the company, but I think it's right that owners get to determine who is running their company as well as having a little input on how it may actually be run.

The CEO of Hasbro is or can be a volatile position...I think it's probably actually safer to be an employee of WotC than the CEO of Hasbro in some instances...though obviously the CEO gets a LOT more money then the employee.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Careful, Morrus. As the highest paid/longest tenured staffer at ENWorld, you may be first in line when the layoffs arrive.

 

[Kzach]

Careful, Morrus. As the highest paid/longest tenured staffer at ENWorld, you may be first in line when the layoffs arrive.

The CEO, especially the one with the majority share holdings, doesn't get fired; he does the firing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A stock ticker... wow.

That's a whole new level of risky mentality. Not really a healthy long-term choice for a company unless it has strong lobbyists.

The corporate headquarters of pretty much every industry do that nowadays. American industry (and maybe other industries, I don't know) are definitely run to please stockholders nowadays.

 

[Alphastream]

I don't think Jeff's article is really sharing much about either TSR or WotC. Rather, it is speaking of corporations in general and why you might have cyclical layoffs that take place at the end of the year.

I'm not comfortable with the premise that layoffs are a cyclical option that can only be held at bay so long each year and only left out of the equation in rare times. I think it would be better to look at it like backing over someone with the car. It's not only in a good year that not backing over someone with the car is reason for celebration. It is never okay to back over someone with the car. Nor is claiming that waiting until the end of the year to back over someone with the car because you put it off as long as you could a redeeming stance.

I think what Jeff is saying is that by waiting until the end you might change things. Maybe one other person would have been let go had those managers not waited a bit longer. I've been in positions where waiting has allowed a company to avoid a layoff.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't think Jeff's article is really sharing much about either TSR or WotC. Rather, it is speaking of corporations in general and why you might have cyclical layoffs that take place at the end of the year.



I think what Jeff is saying is that by waiting until the end you might change things. Maybe one other person would have been let go had those managers not waited a bit longer. I've been in positions where waiting has allowed a company to avoid a layoff.

I don't disagree with his summation nor your addition but rather with the idea of building in the layoffs as a near-inevitability in the first place. The model includes the likelihood of layoffs most years (sometimes twice a year) and seems to still include a raise for a multi-million-dollar salaried CEO who also gets increasingly healthier packages in addition to pay. There's something wrong with the model at its core. Debating the details of it seems to acquiesce to the model and I'd prefer not to.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't disagree with his summation nor your addition but rather with the idea of building in the layoffs as a near-inevitability in the first place. The model includes the likelihood of layoffs most years (sometimes twice a year) and seems to still include a raise for a multi-million-dollar salaried CEO who also gets increasingly healthier packages in addition to pay. There's something wrong with the model at its core. Debating the details of it seems to acquiesce to the model and I'd prefer not to.

Somebody XP Mark for me please....

 

[Alphastream]

I prefer to spend my hobby dollars at a smaller company run by people that enjoy the game as well as want to make a profit off it like Paizo. Hasbro could care less about D&D or the RPG industry unless they are meeting their profit margins and making as much money as possible regardless of quality or creativity.

When a company lacks passionate leadership when it comes to their product, I don't want to support that company unless it's something like toilet paper that I need and does't really require a great deal of creativity. When it comes to my RPG games, I want a company that cares.

Sure, the corporation as a structure has serious issues, and size can result in greater issues. At the very core, the problem is not being content with a certain level. If you can set a goal of "everyone earns x, we have y employees, and we do this every year," then things would be simple and stable. When you want more each year, it gets tough.

But, that is what likely every RPG company wants. From Paizo to AEG to Hero Games (laid off 2/3 of employees, down to 1), companies want to succeed and to grow and to increasingly reward themselves for hard work. Think Erik Mona doesn't want to increasingly provide for family, retirement, etc.?

And keep in mind we are talking about the game industry. It isn't like someone in the upper echelon of an RPG company left investment banking to take a sweet job leading design teams. Nope, these awesome people have been freelancers or up-and-coming employees and that means they could probably really use the company pulling in more revenue so it can provide better health programs and more take-home pay. Just about every person at every RPG is working a job out of passion.

And that includes WotC. You may think they saved D&D (well, they did, actually, back when TSR was collapsing) or you may think they are destroying D&D, but the WotC employees are awesome passionate people (just like at Paizo). These people love gaming, work overtime to bring us the best gaming possible, and deeply care about us (when we aren't flaming them on the internet). Whoever had to tell Rich Baker his job was gone had to have felt absolutely terrible. And yeah, it was probably him so it wasn't four other employees. We've seen Chris Sims and Monte Cook and Stan! recently come back, so hopefully those that have just left also continue to work as freelancers for WotC and can come back in the future as well.

Yes, Wizards is part of Hasbro. By all accounts they have tremendous freedom to operate. But, they do have to meet corporate budgetary goals, even if D&D is valuable just as a potential brand. This is actually good for RPGs, because Hasbro also provides big budgets. That massive art budget is part of what has helped other RPGs take art very seriously. The development of DDI, the ongoing work to figure out how to create in-store play programs, the work to figure out how to increase purchases by players... only Wizards with Hasbro can afford to experiment on that scale. The results benefit all RPGs. Just as Paizo makes Wizards stronger by being a good competitor, the reverse is also true.

Wizards is an excellent, fun, motivated, passionate company. It operates like a small company, but with budgetary benefits that help the entire industry (but which also come with some constraints). It isn't big brother. Ultimately, you should buy the product you like, regardless of company size. They are all small and all passionate. And, we can easily argue that it is very much worthwhile to support Wizards so the D&D brand remains strong. Their advertising alone brings tons of players to all aspects of our hobby. You don't think D&D Encounters brings every RPG in the store some players?

If for personal reasons you want to truly help those that need it, it isn't Paizo... look to small companies like Crafty Games (who left AEG to live the dream), or Posthuman Studios. Think of the really small indie games. Those are companies that can't even begin to dream of anything other than a fan-built character builder, who can't make an MMO or Video Game, and who are in real danger of finding they have to lay themselves off.

 

[Alphastream]

I don't disagree with his summation nor your addition but rather with the idea of building in the layoffs as a near-inevitability in the first place. The model includes the likelihood of layoffs most years (sometimes twice a year) and seems to still include a raise for a multi-million-dollar salaried CEO who also gets increasingly healthier packages in addition to pay. There's something wrong with the model at its core. Debating the details of it seems to acquiesce to the model and I'd prefer not to.

There are a lot of ways to look at it. If you want to experiment a lot in hopes of finding a way out of the typical (horrible) RPG profitability cycle, isn't it better to over-hire so you can try new things? It isn't like employees of Wizards don't know layoffs might come.

Wizards could make having no layoffs a priority. It would likely mean reducing budgetary risk, which would cut down on innovation. I'm not sure we want that, or WotC employees want that (they want to work at an innovative company). Similarly, it is pretty clear that Paizo's MMO is a separate entity so it can be severed if it fails. But we all know that could happen. If it does, that risk will result in a loss of work for someone. It's the risk you take for great results. The alternative is to think small.